Author Topic: Back to flying  (Read 1127 times)

Offline Gixer

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3189
Back to flying
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2005, 05:01:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nilsen
Any F-16 flying CIA agents here?

Cessnas..pffft :p



:rofl


...-Gixer

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Back to flying
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2005, 05:49:14 PM »
Thanks guys!  Then I won't feel too bad about responding with my flight today.

First, the weight issues is very relevant.  I told my instructor about my weight ahead of time, and he planned to have the plane burn off some gas before I got there, so each time, we've flown about a half hour above the VFR minimums from the FAR, eg, two hours of go juice in tanks for an hour of flying.  Between the two of this, this starts us out right at the limit, and after a couple minutes flying, we're golden.

Today, I showed up, and I felt good.  I had done that other writeup, so I had a chance to organize my thoughts.  I practiced my engine out list a couple times on the drive out there, and I was ready and rarin' to go.  I preflighted, decided we were a tiny bit low (2.5 and 3 gallons in the tanks, respectively) so I towed the plane over to the pumps and put in 7 gallons.

Paul got in, I started up the plane, and taxied over to the runup without incident.  Did everything right, no corrections needed from him, did a graceful pirouette to look for traffic (found a guy before the instructor did, entering on the 45) and taxied over and waited, with the plane pointed so I could watch base and final for runway 33.  Instructor asked to see another soft field takeoff, so I reviewed the checklist while waiting for the Cessna 182 to land (he had just dropped off some parachutists) and then, when he was clear of the active, did a nice soft field takeoff.  

The soft takeoff he wants me doing is a lot different from what I learned in SoCal.  Down there, my instructor had me take off in a stall, fly down into the ground effect, accelerate, then climb out at Vy, cleaning up flaps.  Up here, the guy has me take off with the yoke all the way back (like I was taught), but to do a controlled wheelie (letting off pressure as I accelerated to keep the nose steady) and then, as I lift off, I'm just a few seconds away from Vy already, and do my climb out.  Also, he had me using full flaps instead of the one notch my premade checklist suggested.  

I flew out, and around 1,500 feet, he pulled the throttle and told me I lost my engine.  Instantly, I whipped through the sequence he taught me.  After establishing best glide and aiming towards a field: Fuel cut-off, on.  Mixture, full rich.  Adjust throttle, turn on carb heat, check mags (is it both?  Yes, good) and verify the primer was in and locked.  

"Nope, didn't start" he dead panned.  Ah, roger that.  I pointed at the radio, "tuning to one two one point five.  Mayday, mayday, Cessna niner four niner four golf with engine failure, emergency landing two miles north east of Creswell airport, two souls on board."  Inexplicably, I added 'creswell traffic' to the end of my call, because I was so used to it, but the instructor assured me that was fine.  I flew a normal approach for my emergency landing, because I know what things are supposed to look like when I do (something my socal instructor taught me but I never bothered to do until now, whooops...  Jeff, if you're out there, turns out you were right, it DOES make things easier!).  I turned base, then final and lined up with a nice smooth field.  Unlike the Valley in SoCal where I got most of my engine failures (simulated), there aren't MILLIONS OF PEOPLE trying to get in the way of my plane, so I have lots of places to land.  At a couple hundred feet above the ground, he was satisfied that I had the field made and had me do a go around.  I entered the pattern, nailed all my radio calls, saw traffic and dodged accordingly, and everything was peachy.  

...right until halfway through my downwind leg when he reaches over and pulls my throttle again.  "Whoops!  Lost your engine."  I tell him I'm skipping the checklist because I've got the field made and make a short approach.  I come in nice and orderly, putting in full flaps when I feel a little high, and bring us down for a landing.  Nothing to write home about because of the full flaps, no throttle, but it doesn't set off the ELT, so I'm happy.

I throttle up, take off again, and fly the pattern.  This time, he tells me he wants to see a nice landing.  So I fly a normal pattern. feel a little low at one point, but I correct, and as I'm turning base to final, he asks where we're landing.  

"At the end of the second line for the centerline" I tell him, and he approves.  

"I get a little nervous when people say 'on the numbers or that first line.  It's a small runway."  I grease it in right where I wanted, and then take off again.  On downwind, I lose my engine again and this time he tells me there's oil all over the window.  I make my landing via my side window, and come in a bit hot.  I extend past the runway on base, doing a slip, then turn back and slip again as I'm lining up with the runway.  I'm announcing my slips ahead of time so he doesn't get nervous by all the cross controlled flying, and he tells me he's totally fine, especially SINCE I'm announcing it.  I get my airspeed, altitude, and sink rate all cleaned up a hundred feet above the runway and bring it down nice and smooth.  I touch down a couple hundred feet further then usual, so I taxi to the end of the runway instead of taking the turnoff that's halfway down, but it's a fine landing.  I turn to Paul.

"So, how are you feeling about my flying?" I ask.  

"We're done here."  He says I'm not doing anything that makes him nervous, and he's good to sign me off on their plane.  He reminds me to stay on those pre-landing checklists and tells me about a friend of his who landed with his primer unlocked (and the attendant roughness of engine) who just about needed a new set of trousers, all because he didn't do his list, and I can imagine how that would be sub-optimal.

My eldest is turning 3 tomorrow, so Saturday is an 'all family day', but I hope to fly again on Sunday.  I figure I'll probably do a couple of pattern landings, then maybe fly out to Eugene or some other airport.  If my mom (who is visiting for the birthday party) brings my sons to the airport, I'll probably just stay in the pattern for a few spins to show them daddy flying.  I want some more time in the plane before I take up one of my sons or other passengers, but there's no reason I can't let them sit in it!

Marcus, my three year old, has been demanding that we go flying all week.  He tells me that he wants a 'Big BIG plane' so he can fly up to Seattle to visit his grandmother.

Thatta boy!
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Back to flying
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2005, 06:29:38 PM »
Skip the traumahawk, and pick up a nice RV4 or RV6.  HT had the right idea when he got his plane.  RV aircraft kick butt.  In 10 yrs or so I might buy a quickbuild tail kit and see how it goes.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Back to flying
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2005, 07:10:00 PM »
My criteria for plane buys are:

1. Cost (to buy, then to operate, then to insure, work on, etc)
2. IFR suitability.  I'd like to fly my own ride when I get my instrument training.
3. Physical comfort.

My logic on the Tomahawk is that it's super cheap to buy (an IFR certified one with 1800 left on the engine sold for $18,750 on eBay a couple weeks ago) and cheap to fly (6 gallons per hour, ubiquitous Lycoming).  That, plus it apparently has a lot more shoulder room then the C-152, not to mention a few knots faster.  I'm definately going to try one out first, but it's a definate blip on my radar.

If I had the money, I'd buy a Cherokee or Arrow instead, and I guess we'll see what happens.  It ain't gonna happen this week, that's for sure.  Not with my current cash situation.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Back to flying
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2005, 07:27:55 PM »
Chairboy,

Don't let the guys who think the tomahawk is trash dissuade you. It will do fine for what you want, an inexpensive and reliable time builder. The insurance will be much less than it would be for an  experimental for a low time pilot.

The Tomahawk got a bad rep with a spin problem that was fixed with the addition of stall strips on the wing. I got my license in one and stalled it tons of times. Always nice and predictable and MUCH nicer to be in than any C150/152.

As a means to keep it affordable se if you can find an A&P / IA that will let you work on the bird under supervision. You'll learn quite a bit about how the plane works.

Once you get your time then start looking for a nice 4 place or build one.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline spitfiremkv

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1135
Back to flying
« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2005, 07:33:05 PM »
sounds like you're having fun chairboy!
I have 30something hours in a 152 and now I'm switching to a Cherokee, so the opposite of you been doing.
I can't imagine how you'd fit in a 152. that thing felt tiny to me, and I'm not as big as you are.

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Back to flying
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2005, 07:42:16 PM »
I didn't so much 'sit in the plane' as I did 'wear it like a suit', and an ill fitting one at that.

I've figured that a Cessna 152 is a great tool for measuring just how much someone loves flying.  If you're a big guy who is willing to butter himself up to fit inside, then that means you're committed.  

Or perhaps that you should BE committed, I'm not sure which.

Some time in the future, I think I'd like to practice some pushovers.  I want to get some zero-g time, anyone got any tips on how to safely do this?  I know that my carburated, open bowl engine won't run long without gravity, but how long is 'not long' in this case?  Will I stall my engine after a couple seconds?

My expectation would be to get up to a good level cruise, pull back about 10 degrees to establish climb, then push forward gently to establish the arc, begining recovery around 10-15 degrees below the horizon to avoid entering acrobatic flight or exceeding V speeds.  I'd guess a planned speed regime would be enter at 80 knots, drop to 60 at the apex, and exit around 80 again, based on the feel I got today.

Is this crazy talk?  Or kosher?
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Back to flying
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2005, 08:20:10 PM »
Chairboy,

I used to do that in my Comanche. I started a climb at normal cruise and waited until the airspeed got well within the white arc but before stall. I'd then pull the throttle most of the way out and let the yoke go forward. I got about .5G or less for a nice time then let the bird pull itself out of the dive as speed came up. Nice and easy and since it never went full 0 G the oil stayed flowing and the engine kept running. We did the same thing with a 172 but it took a bit of forward pressure on the yoke and the maneuver didn't last quite as long.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline LePaul

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7988
Back to flying
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2005, 09:02:49 PM »
Commanche is a really really nice plane.  Our Aero Club had one for years...1966 I think?  Id have to dig...it was really a great plane to fly.  And for me, an 18 year old kid at the time stuck flying the C172s all the time, it was a real treat when one of the guys took me up in that.

As to the Tomahawk...go for a ride in one.  Asides the spin stuff it earned a rep for, I just didnt like it as much as I did the C172s.

If you go Experimental, the RVs are great.  A guy around here is putting the finishing touches on an RV9.

Dont do the BD-5  ;)   Been there, done that.

If money wasnt a factor, I'd be all over the Viperjet.  (http://www.viper-aircraft.com)

Offline bunch

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
      • http://hitechcreations.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?&forumid=17
Back to flying
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2005, 10:08:19 PM »
If you are interested in an RV, Van's is a short X/C (~=70nm) down the Williamette Valley @ UAO...Cirrus is doing some sort of demo at HIO 10am on 4/30 also...you're close to Lancair also (Bend)...Viperjet in Pasco,WA would be a bit of a long ride getting there

Offline texace

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
      • http://www.usmc.mil
Back to flying
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2005, 10:17:17 PM »
I'm going to be finishing up my dual time in my grandfather's Cessna 140 and Stearman biplane. Haven't ever flown a trike before...almost afraid to. :D

Offline SKJohn

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
Back to flying
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2005, 02:01:39 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
I didn't so much 'sit in the plane' as I did 'wear it like a suit', and an ill fitting one at that.

I've figured that a Cessna 152 is a great tool for measuring just how much someone loves flying.  If you're a big guy who is willing to butter himself up to fit inside, then that means you're committed.  

Or perhaps that you should BE committed, I'm not sure which.

Some time in the future, I think I'd like to practice some pushovers.  I want to get some zero-g time, anyone got any tips on how to safely do this?  I know that my carburated, open bowl engine won't run long without gravity, but how long is 'not long' in this case?  Will I stall my engine after a couple seconds?

My expectation would be to get up to a good level cruise, pull back about 10 degrees to establish climb, then push forward gently to establish the arc, begining recovery around 10-15 degrees below the horizon to avoid entering acrobatic flight or exceeding V speeds.  I'd guess a planned speed regime would be enter at 80 knots, drop to 60 at the apex, and exit around 80 again, based on the feel I got today.

Is this crazy talk?  Or kosher?


IIRC, didn't there used to be an aerobatic version of the 150/152?  I can't imagine getiing inside there with two people wearing parachutes, but I guess they used to do it.
re: negative g's.  I used to somethin similair to that in a 172 after reading about using "parabolic curves" for astronaut training.  I'd dive a little to build up speed, pull up into a climb, and then push the nose down over the top.  Anything (and anyone) who wasn't belted in would float up off the seats.  It would only last for a few seconds, but it was fun!

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Back to flying
« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2005, 06:05:49 AM »
Chairboy,

If you're that close to Van's aircraft, you owe it to yourself to go down and take a test ride.  Or find someone who owns one and hop in.  The latest versions have larger cockpits, and one of the newest ones is much more stable so it would make a better IFR platform.

The RV-6 is side by side seating and has plenty of room, and since the RV-7 has pretty much replaced it, you might be able to find a 6 for less money.  The RV-9 is the stable one, and set up to be more suitable for sport flying and is more economical.  The RV-10 is a 4 place plane.

The RV-9 is probably a near-perfect "first plane".  Using the same engine as a cessna 152, it stalls 1 knot faster but has a 50 knot higher cruise speed.  Bump horsepower up to 160, and it'll cruise near 180 mph.  It's not quite as responsive as the other RV aircraft so it's probably a great IFR platform.  It'll fly fine with any engine between 118 and 160, and they did the development work using 118hp just to ensure that it would be economical, but they also stressed it to handle 160 hp for those who want the climb rate and higher cruise speed.  There are trike and tailwheel versions.

I like this quote from the web site:

Quote
Is the RV-9/9A a good match, or does one of the other time-tested RV models fit your needs better? If you’re a hard-core aerobatic type or often need to haul very large dead animals out of remote places, maybe you need something else entirely. But for most of us, the RV-9/9A will do everything we do, and do it at less expense and a higher “fun quotient” than any competing design.


http://www.vansaircraft.com
« Last Edit: April 23, 2005, 06:15:39 AM by eagl »
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Dnil

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 879
Back to flying
« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2005, 10:24:51 AM »
I agree completely with eagl....most fun I have ever had was in an rv-4.

Offline spitfiremkv

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1135
Back to flying
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2005, 10:30:01 AM »
Quote

If money wasnt a factor, I'd be all over the Viperjet.  


I bet Ru Paul can afford one.